Decision 4 G.R. No. 221139 Thus, Sumatra filed this Petition for Mandamus 21 on November 11, 2015. He notes that Igot had already brought her accusations against him before the concerned Council of Elders and that the Dadantulan Tribal Court was subsequently formed. 22 He adds that on January 3, 2007, the Dadantulan Tribal Court issued a Resolution23 clearing him and declaring that he "should [be spared] from criminal, civil[,] and administrative liability. " 24 Relying on the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act and "other related laws concerning cases involving indigenous peoples," 25 petitioner maintains that a writ of mandamus must be issued to compel respondents to "uphold and respect" 26 the Dadantulan Tribal Court Resolution, and "[t]hereby releas[e] [Sumatra] from jail to stop [his] continued arbitrary detention." 27 For resolution is the issue of whether or not this Court may issue a writ of mandamus ordering respondents Judge Estela Alma Singco, City Prosecutor II Fernando Gubalane, City Prosecutor I Lineth Lapinid, City Prosecutor Nicolas Sellon, and Assistant City Prosecutor Ernesto Narido, Jr. to desist from proceeding with the rape case against petitioner Roderick D. Sumatra. This Court denies the Petition. Petitioner is well-served to disabuse himself of the notion that the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act will shield him from prosecution and prospective liability for crimes. I The 1987 Constitution vests this Court original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus. 28 However, it is not only this Court that has the competence to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus. The Court of Appeals and regional trial courts are equally capable of taking cognizance of petitions for such writs. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. at 3-32. at 11. at 55--63. at 62. at 17. at 29. CONST., Art. 8, sec. 5 (1 ). f